Waite v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala.
| Decision Date | 02 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 2:16-cv-01244-JEO |
| Parties | MEGAN WAITE, Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
In this action, Plaintiff Megan Waite, a former graduate student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham ("UAB"), claims that its Board of Trustees (the "Board") is liable for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). (Doc.1 1). The cause now comes to be heard on the Board's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 27). For the reasons explained below, the court2 concludes that the motion is due to be granted.
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant is authorized to move for summary judgment on the claims asserted against it. Under that rule, the "court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(a). The party moving for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion," relying on submissions "which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); see also Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings" and show there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.
Both the party "asserting that a fact cannot be," and a party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed, must support their assertions by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record," or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(1)(A), (B). In its review of the record, a court must credit the evidence of the non-movant and draw all justifiable inferences in that party's favor. Stewart v. Booker T. Washington Ins., 232 F.3d 844, 848 (11th Cir. 2000). At summary judgment, "the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
In March 2013, Plaintiff was admitted as a graduate student in UAB's Behavioral Neuroscience ("BN") Program in the Department of Psychology. Plaintiff enrolled that summer, and she remained an active participant the program for all of one academic year, 2013-2014, and most of the next, 2014-2015. Plaintiff's last day actually in classes and performing lab work was in early June 2015, whereupon she went on maternity leave. Ultimately, in August 2016, she notified the BN Program Director, Dr. Frank Amthor, that she no longer would be participating in the program and thus desired to terminate her student status.
In her two years in the program, Plaintiff was awarded a "tuition scholarship," which covered not only the cost of courses but also "mandatory fees, including medical/hospital insurance and insurance administration fees." (Doc. 29 at 10, 13). In both years Plaintiff was also appointed as a "Graduate Trainee." As such, UAB paid her a "stipend" of $1,972.50 per month, translating to $23,670.00 annually, which, according to her appointment letters, was "intended to help [her] be a full-time student, immersed in [her] graduate program." (Doc. 29-2 at 8, 11). Indeed, as a condition of receiving her stipend, Plaintiff was prohibited from engaging in any other paid work on or off campus without written consent of the dean of the graduate school. (Id.)
The letter offering Plaintiff her stipend for the 2013-14 academic year labeled that appointment a "Graduate Trainee Fellowship," for which "[n]o services are required as a condition." (Id. at 8). Rather, it mandated only that Plaintiff "register for, and satisfactorily complete" a specified number of course credit hours and "remain in good standing and make satisfactory progress toward [her] degree." (Id.) That letter further explained that, in each subsequent year, her stipend might be in the form of either another "Graduate Fellowship" or a "Graduate Assistantship." (Id.) If it were the latter, the letter said, Plaintiff would "be given a service assignment of no more than 20 hours per week by [her] mentor, Graduate Program Director, or Departmental Chair," designed "to enhance [her] professional development, as well as contribute to the teaching, research, or service missions of the university." (Id.) To that end, while Plaintiff's appointment letter for her second academic year, 2014-15, did not use the term "Assistantship," it expressly stated that she would be given just such a weekly "assignment." (Doc. 29-2 at 11). That letter also no longer referred to her appointment as a "fellowship" and no longer provided that "no services were required." Finally, Plaintiff's 2014-15 appointment letter again recognized that she had to "remain in good standing and make satisfactory progress toward [her] degree," specifically requiring her to "register for, and satisfactorily complete, at least 23 semester hours of approved graduate course work each year (at least 9 hours in the Fall and Spring and 5 hours in the summer)." (Id. at 11; see also id. at 69, 71).
Despite the characterization in Plaintiff's appointment letter that her first-year stipend was a "fellowship" for which "no services" were "required," Plaintiff nonetheless regularly worked in UAB labs during both of her years in the program. First year students in the BN program went through three lab rotations, one per academic term, at the conclusion of which they would select a professor they wanted to serve as their program "mentor." (Doc. 29-13; see also Doc. 29-3, Deposition of Robert Sorge ("Sorge Dep.") at 63). Per UAB policy, graduate students also received one semester hour of course credit toward their degree for every 30 hours of such lab work. (Doc. 29-2 at 68). In Plaintiff's case, she started her first year working in the lab of Dr. Robert Sorge, a professor in UAB's Department of Psychology, from the summer of 2013 to December of that year. (Doc. 29-2 at 51). For the spring term, from January to April 2014, she worked in a different psychology professor's lab before rotating back to Dr. Sorge's lab in May 2014. (Id.) Plaintiff ultimately chose Dr. Sorge as her program mentor, and his was the only lab in which she worked thereafter while in the program. (Id.)
In December 2014, Plaintiff told Dr. Sorge that she was pregnant. Soon after, they had a discussion about maternity leave. Under the policy of the UAB graduate school, graduate trainees and graduate assistants are entitled to 30 work days of paid parental leave. (Doc. 29-8 at 13). Dr. Sorge told Plaintiff that she could take that time either as six weeks of full-time absence or as a combination of fewer weeks of full-time leave followed by a period of half-time leave. (Sorge Dep. at 18). Plaintiff recounts that she and Dr. Sorge "discussed her taking six weeks of full-time absence" and that, "at the beginning of the discussions, [she] left it open to [taking] two to four weeks of part-time return," and she "ultimately decide[d] on" leave that would include two weeks of part-time hours. (Doc. 29-1, Plaintiff's Deposition ("Pl. Dep.") at 25).
On January 3, 2015, Plaintiff sent an email to Tammie Quinn, the supervisor of Dr. Sorge's lab, setting out a schedule of pre- and post-natal doctor's appointments she expected to attend, as well as the due date for her baby: July 30, 2015. (Doc. 29-6 at 6-7). On June 5, 2015, however, Plaintiff sent an email to Terri Roberson, the Graduate Programs Manager for the Psychology Department, notifying her that, due to complications with Plaintiff's pregnancy, her doctor had placed her on bed rest, requiring an immediate leave of absence. (Doc. 29-2 at 18; see also Doc. 29-6 at 13). Plaintiff further inquired about her leave, including how it would be split between paid and unpaid, maternity and medical otherwise, and what she needed to do. (Doc. 29-2 at 18). Roberson responded with an email explaining that, as it related to Plaintiff's "Graduate Trainee/ Fellowship" appointment, she would immediately go on "paid parental leave" for 30 work days, covering a six-week period from June 8 to July 17, 2015. (Doc. 29-2 at 96-97). Once that expired, Roberson said, Plaintiff would need to request a "Leave of Academic Absence" through the graduate school, as outlined in the UAB Graduate Student Handbook. (Id.; see also id. at 69). Roberson observed that Plaintiff would not be paid during that leave of academic absence. (Doc. 29-2 at 96-97). However, it appears that UAB continued to pay Plaintiff's stipend through July 31, 2015, albeit inadvertently, thereby giving her two weeks of paid maternity leave beyond that to which she was entitled under UAB's policy. (Pl. Dep. at 87; Roberson Dep. at 40-41, 91; Doc. 29-6 at 21). Finally, Roberson stated that, as it related to Plaintiff's "enrollment as a student," she would also need to complete an attached form requesting a "medical withdrawal" from her summer 2015 coursework. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff's submitted such a request (Doc. 29-2 at 99) that was then approved. (Id. at 101). As a result, she was dropped from her only summer course: research work in Dr. Sorge's lab for five credit hours. (Id. at 102).
On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff delivered her baby. On August 6th, with fall term classes slated to begin on August...
To continue reading
Request your trial